Visual Entertainment and Technologies Forum

I was having a interesting discussion on IRC and i thought id get some more opinions on it.

What types of components, especially engines, do you think it is appropriate to have access to in early game?(1900-1910)

In older versions of the game, i was used to being limited to Straight engines usually 2-4 cylinders or Single Cylinders.
In the most recent version, i have access to 6 and 8 cylinders, as well as Straight, V engines and often more.

What do you think should be available to your average player in this timeframe?

I know very little of the history and technical of this timeframe, so i wont speak to that.
I can say that from a gameplay perspective, i think you should need to build components and perhaps do some research to get over 4 cylinders and anything other than Single/Straight engines.

From my very subjective point of view, I would say that it is a bit much that i can make a V8 engine in 1900, concidering me and my engineers/researchers most probably aren't very experienced yet. Where the limits should go, I don't know. Maybe it should be tweakable in options (just to make all the more hell for our poor developer). I think V2 enginges existed even before 1900 and that V8 engines came not soon after, but I don't think they where available for cars.

Example of an arbitrary starting point:
single-sylinder
straight and flat up to 6 sylinders
U up to 6 or 8
V up to 2 or 4 sylinders
No H yet maybe?
No transversed engines or gearboxes

Or a realy harsh and somewhat unrealistic starting point:
single-sylinder
straight/flat up to 2 or 3 sylinders

I have no idea what is historical, but it's more likely that a company making engines and otherwise being experienced with mechanical engineering from the last 10-20 years could pull of making a large V8 in 1900, than we as newly started companies could.

Well, to me, this has always been somewhat problematic and I believe that the research system itself is to blame. In the early period of the autmobile, companies were experimenting with all kinds of wacky designs - there were no 'dos and dont's' yet. Therefore I don't like the idea of limiting the player in his choice. Who's to say that the player's company isn't one of those attempting to build an early V8? The first one for car use was built in 1904 IIRC.

The current 'research system', and I believe I have said this before, does not really live up to the rest of the game. It's too intransparent (designing components hoping that research will be progressed?) and there's practically no player control, which does not make for interesting game mechanics. In fact, until recently (when the research budget allocation was implemented) there was practically no involvement with research at all.

I realize that it's probably too far into the project to implement any drastic changes, but it's something that, to me, is probably the weakest point of an otherwise excellent simulation.

I would envision a system where players can select from a more-or-less 'free-flowing' research tree and allocate budgets to research projects, such as 'Experiment with new engine configuration' or 'Attempt to increase the number of cylinders'. Research progress would then depend on how difficult such a technology would have been to research at that point in time and the player's monetary investment (further modifiers could be added by the construction of research centers or purchasing university resources and the like). At some point, enough progress would be made to design a prototype. The player would then go on to design this new prototype in the engine designer - with a certain chance of the protoype failing depending on other factors (complexity of the design, etc.), which would cause the development cost for that prototype to be lost. The player would then be given the option of designing another prototype (maybe at a higher cost?), which would be more likely to succeed. After the prototyping stage has been successful, the player could then be given the option of modifying the engine for production (and thus have it ready at a lower cost and more quickly than would usually be the case). Such a research system, which would in fact be quite similar to a lot other games (especially the 4X genre), could, of course, provide any number of other gameplay benefits, such as research into 'Engine reliability' and the like.

Maybe that's something for the expansion. With the present system there's always going to be some sort of compromise.

(06-05-2014, 09:33 AM)freeman2344 Wrote: [ -> ]Arakash Edit: Cleared for space, read above to see the content of the post

Well my idea generally is that you would have several starting scenarios that would give you a specialization in a certain skillset.

So if, as you describe, you were one of the wacky outfits producing the first V8 for a commercial car, you could pick the scenario that gave your team specialized skills starting off.

I dont know if it would be a fair representation to have every single company allowed to build them in day 1.

I dont think ill go into a deep discussion on the mechanics of research here, it would definitely derail the entire post.
Perhaps you should start a new post on it?

(06-05-2014, 09:51 AM)Arakash Wrote: [ -> ]Well my idea generally is that you would have several starting scenarios that would give you a specialization in a certain skillset.

So if, as you describe, you were one of the wacky outfits producing the first V8 for a commercial car, you could pick the scenario that gave your team specialized skills starting off.

I dont know if it would be a fair representation to have every single company allowed to build them in day 1.

This is starting to sound really interesting. To be able to choose a set of starting skills sounds very fitting.

And freeman2344's ideas for changes to reasearch in general also sounds good to me (if I understood it correctly ofc), and would be fitting as an own suggestion for an expansion.

Why would you want it limited? If the game does not have built in ways to limit it then why should we not be able to build them?

If the game lets me build a V8 and fit in the same parts that a much smaller engine fits then there are other issues than just being able to build a V8 at a time when I should possibly not be making a V8.

The other thing is what time line do you go by if you want to just limit by a time line, if you look up the history of a certain car manufacturer that is just their time line. Every other car manufacturer has their own time line. So to me it only makes sense that we would be able to build our timeline.

I think the real issue research and design, instead of trying to explain it go download the demo for cars incorporated design a car in there and you will see what I am trying to say.

In cars incorporated when you design an engine you can improve some aspects of that for your next engine or a completely new engine. Here is a quote from wikipedia “The T engine was produced continuously from September 27, 1908, through August 4, 1941, exactly 12,000 days. This makes it one of the longest engines in series production, “

That is Ford's timeline for that engine, I can do that or have the sense of that in Cars Incorporated, I have no idea how to do that in Gear City. To me that is why the research part feels so disconnected.

(06-05-2014, 07:22 PM)RatAttack Wrote: [ -> ]In cars incorporated when you design an engine you can improve some aspects of that for your next engine or a completely new engine. Here is a quote from wikipedia “The T engine was produced continuously from September 27, 1908, through August 4, 1941, exactly 12,000 days. This makes it one of the longest engines in series production, “

That is Ford's timeline for that engine, I can do that or have the sense of that in Cars Incorporated, I have no idea how to do that in Gear City. To me that is why the research part feels so disconnected.

Modify buttons in the R&D department allow for continue refinement of a component. Nothing specific though, just a generic stat increase.

Forgot to add, nearly everything is changeable if we get to do an expansion, so any ideas are appreciated, specially if you guys feel that this is one of the weaker features of the game.

“Forgot to add, nearly everything is changeable if we get to do an expansion, so any ideas are appreciated, specially if you guys feel that this is one of the weaker features of the game. “

I have no idea if anything needs to be changed or not, that just my first take at his post. I know if I get a warning that my engine will not fit my chassis in GC because I tried that already.

---

“Modify buttons in the R&D department allow for continue refinement of a component. Nothing specific though, just a generic stat increase. “

Not to get to far off track but I found the modify button and spent 4,000,000 before I realized I even clicked on something.

(06-05-2014, 08:56 PM)RatAttack Wrote: [ -> ]Not to get to far off track but I found the modify button and spent 4,000,000 before I realized I even clicked on something.

Yea, there has been debate on if this is too high of a cost. I will probably get around to "fixing" it eventually.

(06-05-2014, 07:22 PM)RatAttack Wrote: [ -> ]Why would you want it limited? If the game does not have built in ways to limit it then why should we not be able to build them?

If the game lets me build a V8 and fit in the same parts that a much smaller engine fits then there are other issues than just being able to build a V8 at a time when I should possibly not be making a V8.

The other thing is what time line do you go by if you want to just limit by a time line, if you look up the history of a certain car manufacturer that is just their time line. Every other car manufacturer has their own time line. So to me it only makes sense that we would be able to build our timeline.

I think the real issue research and design, instead of trying to explain it go download the demo for cars incorporated design a car in there and you will see what I am trying to say.

In cars incorporated when you design an engine you can improve some aspects of that for your next engine or a completely new engine. Here is a quote from wikipedia “The T engine was produced continuously from September 27, 1908, through August 4, 1941, exactly 12,000 days. This makes it one of the longest engines in series production, “

That is Ford's timeline for that engine, I can do that or have the sense of that in Cars Incorporated, I have no idea how to do that in Gear City. To me that is why the research part feels so disconnected.

Like i said earlier in response to freeman who posted a few unrelated research suggestions in their post, i would suggest you start a new thread on those topics, where i and im sure everyone would be happy to discuss it.

On the actual topic you asked:
"Why would you want it limited? "
"If the game does not have built in ways to limit it then why should we not be able to build them?"

Well actually, you seem to be unaware of the "built in ways" the game currently has to limit technology.
Ive mentioned some of this in my FAQ, in the question about "why cant i access X component"(Q21)
Ill just summarise for you that access to components is dictated by:
The skill of your team in that specific area(engine for e.g.)
The release date of the component(things have to be released before you can use them)
The skill requirement of the component. (which decreases yearly/quarterly to represent the tech becoming more commonplace.)

As to why its there, i think there a few reasons.

The first is an attempt to approximate the history and reality of automotive manufacture.
I obviously cant comment on the history myself, as i didnt design it, but clearly the release dates hint at this sort of thing.

The Second is Progression
Its probably a word youv'e heard used before talking about games. Progression means that during your gameplay, you get access to different and new things, usually as a reward for either doing things or just spending time in the game.
At the moment progression exists via the release dates of components and also through the release dates of body types and vehicle types.
Having new components become available to you through your own research that are not available to other companies is another form of this.
You've likely experienced this before ingame if youv'e ever played a 1900 game. In 1900, you dont have immediate access to 16 cylinders. You gain access by raising your skill ratings through designing components and the research team system.
The level of skill required also goes down over time, to represent the technology becoming more common place.

If your still having difficulty understanding progression, think of gaining levels in RPG's and Tech Trees in Strategy games. These are forms of progression.

I also shared another reason i think it should be limited, which you may have missed.
I think there should be various starting scenarios which give you different access to different and more advanced components at the start, depending on what the people familiar with history think is appropriate.
So put simply:
-Standard scenario would give you basic access, but require research for anything unique/strange at the time.
-High Tech Engine Scenario might give you immediate access to a number of strange engine designs, representing a group of pioneers in the field.
etc etc. (many other options for this)

I think, in this game, having these starting scenarios is a better idea than simply giving all new companies access to everything.

(06-06-2014, 12:22 AM)Arakash Wrote: [ -> ]So put simply:
-Standard scenario would give you basic access, but require research for anything unique/strange at the time.
-High Tech Engine Scenario might give you immediate access to a number of strange engine designs, representing a group of pioneers in the field.
etc etc. (many other options for this)

I think this could get expanded into some background system.
At the start of the game, one could choose their character's background, such as Engine Pioneer you mentioned, giving one access to more engine designs, or Renowned Manager, lowering the administration cost, or Lottery Winner, giving one some additional cash, etc. etc

Of course the feature could be disabled if one wanted a bit more challenge, and the benefits would be lower with higher difficulty levels.

(06-06-2014, 04:21 AM)Kubby Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-06-2014, 12:22 AM)Arakash Wrote: [ -> ]So put simply:
-Standard scenario would give you basic access, but require research for anything unique/strange at the time.
-High Tech Engine Scenario might give you immediate access to a number of strange engine designs, representing a group of pioneers in the field.
etc etc. (many other options for this)

I think this could get expanded into some background system.
At the start of the game, one could choose their character's background, such as Engine Pioneer you mentioned, giving one access to more engine designs, or Renowned Manager, lowering the administration cost, or Lottery Winner, giving one some additional cash, etc. etc

Of course the feature could be disabled if one wanted a bit more challenge, and the benefits would be lower with higher difficulty levels.

Sounds good.
If your interesting in discussing background/starting scenarios in depth, there was a long discussion on it here you might be interested in.

To start let me just say this, you should not assume to what I may or may not understand about the game, about cars in general or about car manufacturing. Have you ever heard of the PAC model of communication or how you apply filters to communication? And how everyone has their own filters from their own unique set of experiences.

So I was thinking you wanted to have a discussion at 'A' out of the PAC thing, And for a quick reference of my 'filters' I design stuff and when I design it there is a design review. I look at your post as a design review of engines. The way a design for me in the real world goes is I get some constraints at the start I need to interpret those into the design. When I have it at a place to review we have a review, now someone might say I don't like item A and then we need to explain that item A is linked to item C. They don't say well we don't want to talk about C we only want to talk about A.

Now how does that apply to your post? the only way in the game to access engines is research. So for you to say there can be no talk about research even though that it is the only way to access engines in the game makes no sense to me. Nothing productive would come from a normal meeting like that. Now if all you want is a poll where someone says good idea or bad idea then you should just have a poll, but again nothing productive would come from that.

You seem to take it personally if you are questioned on something, again since you presumed my position on stuff you must think I am attacking you or something from my lack of knowledge. When I design something I am held accountable for every item in that design for the entire lifespan of the item. If it has 50 items I need to explain why I used each of those 50 items and why each attribute of those 50 items is the way it is.

So when I ask why to something it is not an attack or it is not my lack of understanding what is in the game it is a question as to why you want it that way.

I will address the rest of the stuff you posted later.

(06-06-2014, 11:27 AM)RatAttack Wrote: [ -> ]To start let me just say this, you should not assume to what I may or may not understand about the game, about cars in general or about car manufacturing. Have you ever heard of the PAC model of communication or how you apply filters to communication? And how everyone has their own filters from their own unique set of experiences.

So I was thinking you wanted to have a discussion at 'A' out of the PAC thing, And for a quick reference of my 'filters' I design stuff and when I design it there is a design review. I look at your post as a design review of engines. The way a design for me in the real world goes is I get some constraints at the start I need to interpret those into the design. When I have it at a place to review we have a review, now someone might say I don't like item A and then we need to explain that item A is linked to item C. They don't say well we don't want to talk about C we only want to talk about A.

Now how does that apply to your post? the only way in the game to access engines is research. So for you to say there can be no talk about research even though that it is the only way to access engines in the game makes no sense to me. Nothing productive would come from a normal meeting like that. Now if all you want is a poll where someone says good idea or bad idea then you should just have a poll, but again nothing productive would come from that.

You seem to take it personally if you are questioned on something, again since you presumed my position on stuff you must think I am attacking you or something from my lack of knowledge. When I design something I am held accountable for every item in that design for the entire lifespan of the item. If it has 50 items I need to explain why I used each of those 50 items and why each attribute of those 50 items is the way it is.

So when I ask why to something it is not an attack or it is not my lack of understanding what is in the game it is a question as to why you want it that way.

I will address the rest of the stuff you posted later.

Ill be reporting your post to the moderator, for making a personal attack on me, attacking my communication skills and also attacking me personally for criticizing the points you raised.
Not only do i find this offensive and disruptive, it was totally unnecessary and without justification.

Notice in my response i made no personal attacks, i politely criticized the points you made and your lack of knowledge on the subject matter.

You clearly made two mistakes, which i called you out on.
1. Not following the forum recommendations(forum rules), which generally ask for people to put one topic per thread.
2. Speaking of topics which you were clearly not fully informed
Evidenced by the following statement:
""If the game does not have built in ways to limit it then why should we not be able to build them?""
You would not be making this statement if you were aware that they are actually built in ways to limit them currently implemented.
I explained them in my post.

That's all im going to say on this topic. I have no interest in wasting time on these types of flaming/troll posts, so Ill be adding you to my block/ignore lists in the future. This means i will neither see nor respond to any of your further posts.

M'kay children, you both took your shots, no more hacking away at each other or the thread will be locked...

You guys are taking away time I would be spending on making accessories easier to place in the car designer... So try to act more your ages and not your shoe sizes... (Using US standard of shoe measurements of course.)

In this case it doesn't seem to be an obvious "right" or "wrong" answer, since it clearly comes down to personal preference what one likes the best and what gives an individual player the best gaming experience. That might point towards a freedom of choice in the starting setup of a new game being a good compromise (and once again putting more weight on Eric.B's decision making, developer, "I wear many hats" shoulders).

I at least just absolutely love being able to start with a narrow range of available technologies if the game lends it self well to such a starting point, and I think GearCity would fit perfectly for that

I honestly have no idea what happened, I was explaining my perspective / point of view before I answered him by providing some background information on myself. That was not anything to do with Arakash other that I can see he does not understand where I am coming from so I thought I would explain where I am coming from first.

The PAC thing is a training I had take long time ago maybe it means something different now, they basically locked us in cabin with 5 strangers and made us talk about uncomfortable things in uncomfortable ways. They would have a subject that everyone had to have an opinion on then they would say hey Fred tell John what you dont like about his idea, and then say John tell Fred what you dont like about his, and then say ok now you two come up with a new plan that you both support.

P = parent, 1 idea is better than all others, A = adult all ideas are equal come to final idea by combining all the ideas., C = child where you just argue with each other. That's all it is And the filters is your experiences change how you view stuff.

None of that has anything bad to do with Arakash it was all explaining my perspective.

And like I said the stuff I design has questions asked about it all the time so I am used to asking questions about stuff and being questioned. Just today we were asked if we can change something we made 6 months ago.

I guess the question I have now is can I start a new thread similar to this but let it carry out how I am used to stuff carrying out? Where if it turns to research then so be it as long as it is about the topic still. I am really confused here if this is how discussions normally go.

(06-06-2014, 02:37 PM)RatAttack Wrote: [ -> ]I guess the question I have now is can I start a new thread similar to this but let it carry out how I am used to stuff carrying out? Where if it turns to research then so be it as long as it is about the topic still. I am really confused here if this is how discussions normally go.

Topics typically ebb and flow when there is opinion instead of questions. This thread is fine as long as the topic remains on the subject of the original post: "Balancing starting image/skills and how much tech you get from it"

I typically let these design idea conversations build on their own, then when I'm already to work in this area, I'll come in and cherry pick what I like.

So if you have any thoughts on this subject, feel free to continue adding to the thread! Keeping it all in one places really helps me in the long run.

(06-06-2014, 06:24 PM)Eric.B Wrote: [ -> ]Topics typically ebb and flow when there is opinion instead of questions.

I guess I am used to questioning someone when I have a question on their opinion, Like I said I do that all day every day at work. And without answers to my questions I can not finish responding. So I will respond to my own questions to maybe clear them up.


“Why would you want it limited? If the game does not have built in ways to limit it then why should we not be able to build them? “

This is as listed. there are limits in the game already, If we tried to build a monster engine right at the start it would need a huge frame and should need a large gear box to transfer all that power. So in the end that engine should already be to expensive and or difficult to make. If it is not then there already a mechanism in the game to be tweaked to make that engine to hard to make at the start.

So that is why I ask why add another mechanism where there already is one?

Also when you look at an engine from a design standpoint it is not that hard to come up with a design to go from X to Y cylinders. Just Imagine some guy on the floor hey bob can't we add more cylinders to this thing, they would both be like yeah don't see a reason why not. Then it goes to engineering and they spec out how much bigger everything would need to be for that bigger engine and it would not be economically feasible to produce not that they technically could not make it but it would be to cost prohibitive. Also as soon as any company makes the first of anything it is much easier to just copy that item, it is much much harder to come up with something original than it is to copy something.


“The other thing is what time line do you go by if you want to just limit by a time line “

This question also stands as listed what time line would engines be limited to? This game is more of a sandbox type game it is not a sim of Ford Motors or any other motor company. So that is why I ask what time line, anyone can search items on the web even just using wikipedia you can find when V-8 engines were used starting in 1902 so just because ford used the inline/straight does not mean that other engines were not around.

Also if the game is more of a sandbox why should we be locked in to what other companies did? Each engine style in the game should have some advantage and disadvantage over a different design. We should be able to chose the one we want and run with it.

Starting skills:

The game has starting options so it seems to me that you should be able to change the starting levels of the skills already in the game, it would just be one more thing that changes along with starting money. But I have no idea if that is what they are talking about since it was shut down.

The modify button:

If the modify button worked more like cars incorporated to me it would be much better. Instead of something random and instant it takes us to the research screen move some sliders and hit the go button. That is why I said to look at cars incorporated it is much easier to see it than me explain it.

Skill trees:
If there was going to be skill trees to me it would make more sense for there to be an accumulative bonus for sticking with the same engine type over time rather than a skill tree. Look at wikipedia for Ford they have produced straight engines for ever. So if I want to start with 'V' engines and make them forever in the game I would get some bonus on my ratings for that engine each year I produce it and research it. It could be that way with body styles and everything else as well. If you make small cars for 40 years you would not really have a good handle on how to make a large luxury car, but your small cars should be rated really good.

There are my thoughts on it so far hopefully they spur some more comments.